User talk:William M. Connolley

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 2 May 2006 (arch admin 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:51, 2 May 2006 by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (arch admin 3)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look.

In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives

Notes for self: protected pages:

(s) Serbia and Montenegro

Note to others: I just put that here to stop me forgetting; I don't own the protect (of course).

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni ☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

RRS John Biscoe

I've justed created a stub for this article and found you'd already done the same for her successor, the James Clark Ross. Great! Do you have (access to) a Commons/Wikipedia-compliant photo of the Biscoe that could be used? Apologies in advance if my search failed to turn one up.
Best wishes, David Kernow 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't; I'll ask around a bit William M. Connolley 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If no joy, or too much hassle, I'm hopeful one or other of the Antarctica websites with photos might give permission or adopt a Commons/Wikipedia-friendly licence. David Kernow 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trend Estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Southern vacillations

There's an edit about SB03 that is in dire need of improvement. It's right up your alley. FYI, Daniel Collins 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for delay, got missed in the infighting I think. I've commented now, and made some huge hacks too William M. Connolley 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium disambiguation

Hi. Since some people are known (to my dismay) to refer to me as "N" as a shortcut, you might want to disambiguate your evidence to make clear that you are referring to James Salsman, and not me. Thanks. Nandesuka 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, will do William M. Connolley 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Overlooked image?

Hey Mr. TL-C's puppetmaster, it looks like Image:IMG 0335-james-clark-ross.jpg didn't get a GFDL like the others. (The untagged images project sees all sins!) Stan 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

C'est moi. Tagged! Thanks for the notice William M. Connolley 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Scientific peer review

Wasn't sure if you were aware of this, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. Guettarda 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was half-aware. I'll go and become fully aware :-) William M. Connolley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll volunteer - it's probably best to explain ones credentials oneself. And yeah, I forgot about Dunc. I'll mention it to him. Guettarda 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a example of a good or featured science article of yours? This would make it easy to vote in your favour in the project.--Stone 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure thats the right idea. In fact I would say its wrong. William M. Connolley 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is wrong would it than be right to ask you if you participated in a PR with good arguments and helped to improve a article? For me the administrative abilities and a large number of edits are simply not enough for SPR. --Stone 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got time to be on a committee, but I could look at econ articles from time to time JQ 07:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be useful. It may become clearer at some point what this board might do... William M. Connolley 09:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

monobook

I noticed that you are not using the AN/3RR tabs. Note that you can custimize them by changing them (or you can tell me what you want them changed to exactly).Voice-of-All 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Its taking some getting used to. Err. Maybe tonight. William M. Connolley 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Antarctic Expedition

If you are interested, and don't have access to JSTOR, I can send you a PDF copy of the paper that I cite in the article, it mentions extensively the subject that you just talked about. If you like, just email me through the Misplaced Pages email function and I'll reply attaching the paper. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK, BAS has an extensive historical section in the library... now you've started this I may try to add some more William M. Connolley 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, not surprising, it would be great to have some more input, even if its just in laying out the article etc. I'm kind of stumped for the scope of the article, what to include, what to leave out etc. Its a very big subject :) - FrancisTyers 20:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weather and monsoon on AID

Hi William, maybe you are interested in voting especially for weather, but also monsoon on WP:AID, both of which are close to missing their thresholds.

Happy to vote for both of those William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also wondering if you're coming to Edinburgh for the Antarctic treaty meeting in June? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. In fact I didn't know it was on :-( William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JS

I re-added the JS, but without the popups. That should work. Tell me if there is anything else you want changed.Voice-of-All 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta! I'll give it a go... William M. Connolley 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Try protecting and unprotecting articles (leave the tag)...its really fun for some reason :-)!Voice-of-All 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hobbes

Hobbes is a character in Wing Commander games and novels. As Hobbes is redirected to Thomas Hobbes, I find it logical to refer to the page of the character. Moreover, the same has been done for the comic strip. 84.193.3.47 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The comic strip is far far more notable. We can't list every thing or object called Hobbes. Possibly the redirect page should become disambig William M. Connolley 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

APPCDC and UNFCCC

You ask "who says" that the AP6 is compatible with UNFCCC and complementary to Kyoto. These claims are straight from the . It would be better to add a critique, rather than simply remove them from the article. Mporter 06:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Help me here. Which article are you talking about and which edit? I don't remember this William M. Connolley 10:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mporter 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I replied here. Cheers, Sam Spade 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I guess

Thanks for the comment. Yeah, it was pretty clear it had to go. --OrbitOne talk 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Cluster

We, the children of the Earth, acknowledge William M. Connolley to have written many words of wisdom, which will be heeded for generations to come. As such these Barnstars are for your continuing efforts for that which is good, fair and accurate in Misplaced Pages.

So say we all.

So say we all!

RoyBoy, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, FeloniousMonk, ScienceApologist, WAS 4.250, Jim62sch, Dragons flight

07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you all, I'm deeply touched. Now I have to keep living up to it William M. Connolley 13:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A trivial disambiguation

Your user page link to Coton left me guessing that you live in Coton, Cambridgeshire. Never heard of it, though I did briefly live and work in Berko, before fleeing to Hertford. ...dave souza, talk 12:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There used to be only one Coton... yes, I am in the Cambridge one. Its a small place. Berko was quite nice too, to grow up in William M. Connolley 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf War

Just so you know William, the full official name of the conflict is "Persian Gulf War", "Gulf War" is simply the shortened version used in common situations, but still the full encyclopedic title should be "Persian Gulf War" as used by other authoritative encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica , Encyclopedia Encarta , Encyclopedia.com , The Columbia Encyclopedia and pretty much every other major Encyclopedia out there. Regards. --ManiF 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you about what words should be used in the article, and will edit accordingly, though of course without using my special powers William M. Connolley 17:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with calling it "Gulf War" in the midst of the sections but I think the article's title and introduction should include something like "Persian Gulf War, commonly known as The Gulf War" in accordance with all the major Encyclopedias. Regards. --ManiF 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Could you give me an opinion on this edit? It keeps getting reverted. Shouldn't alternative names be bold-faced? Aucam an 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For a start, it is not an "alternative name" --Kash 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman's position seems reasonable to me. There is too much stupid nationalism going on. William M. Connolley 09:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read this. This is not about nationalism, those who advertise that bogus name are nationalists, not the other way around. I suspect you are not familiar with the history of this subject. --ManiF 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, let me quote Arab Egyptian Dr. Mostafa Alfaqi "In the decade of the 1950s, the cabinet of Iran's then prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown and his foreign minister Dr Hossein Fatemi was killed. The Shah, with his tense relations with Iraq on the Arvand-Roud (Shatt-ul-Arab) assumed the role of the region's gendarme in opposition to the government of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Therefore, the Arabs asked for the change of the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf when they saw that the Shah of Iran was supporting Israel and was against Arab nationalism." --ManiF 10:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and here is another article from a neutral source, describing and examining the whole controversy. Cheers. --ManiF 10:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is, blatantly and obviously, all about nationalism, please don't try to pretend otherwise. William M. Connolley 10:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the United Nations would call Persian Gulf "the only historically and legally valid term for the waterway separating Iranian plateaus from the Arabian Peninsula" on two occasions to endorse nationalism as you are suggesting, not to mention that on both occasions 191 Member States of the United Nations, including all 22 Arab nations represented at the United Nations signed the documents. It's about nationalism allright, but Arab nationalism. As that article states: "Some observers have traced the origins of the campaign to change the name of the Persian Gulf to the rise of Arab nationalism and in particular, Gamal Abdel Nasser." --ManiF 11:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN isn't the final arbitrator for wiki; in some ways I wish it were, it would simplify the GW articles a lot. See William M. Connolley 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Persian Gulf naming dispute first, this is exactly what the article explains. --Kash 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi William,

My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Misplaced Pages for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Misplaced Pages "photographer." I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Misplaced Pages and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an informal email interview? Thanks, Fernanda.

OK, that might be interesting, try me... you could even try pasting the Q's in here, if you like, for the real wiki-spirit. Note the note I'm about to put at the top of my page, though! (ps: I looked at history flow when it first came out, and someone linked it; but I never read your paper. Thanks) William M. Connolley 19:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: reading the HF paper: Some edit wars last as long as 20 consecutive versions. Wimps! *I* had an edit war that lasted all though April/May 2005... , at least 48 reverts William M. Connolley 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SSC

Fixing that paragraph was actually on my list for the next day or two. I posted a comment on the blog entry saying so, and noting that (in general) people shouldn't trust a page that's been hammered with citation-needed tags. -- SCZenz 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone with wiki-experience would realise that at once; obviously the outside world is less sure. William M. Connolley 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Heating up the water cycle

Water cycle has undergone a massive face lift recently. I've got the ball rolling on two themes in your back pocket - climate regulation and climate change. I'm not too hot on the former, so I shall leave it to others. FYI, in case you'd like to spruce up some basic science. Daniel Collins 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Glaciological flow modeling

Since you work at the BAS, I was wondering if you could recommend any real life experts in ice sheet flow modeling? I've been shown some results related to a non-dome site in the interior of Antarctica that suggest a level of flow related distortion in the ice that I find surprising, but as I have little background in this area, I'd like to talk to someone with greater expertise. Dragons flight 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From my own knowledge, I don't know. People at BAS who might know, or who would know who does know, are Richard Hindmarsh (who does whole-ant ice sheet models, though maybe little emphasis on interior flow; rcah@obvious) or Eric Wolff (who does ice core chemistry, Dome C core etc, and therefore has to care about interior flow though not a modeller; ewwo@) or David Vaughan (who has done GPR and stuff, and maybe some modelling; dgv@). Hope that helps; feel free to use my name as an intro William M. Connolley 08:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello M. Connolley, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your comments and your vote of support. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Change name of Category

Hi William,

I want to change Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods JEL:C, which I just created, to Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods in Economics JEL:C, as suggested on the talk page. There's no obvious way to do this, so I thought I would seek your help/advice. Thanks in advance JQ 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered over at the cat: I don't see a move button, but I'm not very familiar with cats. William M. Connolley 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the support

Hi William- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

support

Hi,

I just wanted to say that I do not think that Dr. Connolley has been abusing Admin powers. He seems to be a calm, clear-headed admin who works to resolve disputes and other conflicts on the encyclopedia, which I believe is the whole purpose of having administrators. Thanks.

Rogerman 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman -Rog

Global warming

Hi William. I've been loosely following the recent editing patterns and talk page rambling on this article, and as you may have noticed I finally decided to throw myself into the foray a bit. Is there anything I can do to help you out with this? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, yes. Do keep watching and comment; the actual article seems reasonably stable; I need to find time sometime to look through the different proposed intros rather more carefully. William M. Connolley 09:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity

Hello. I think you should consider blocking infinity0 from the Administrator's noticeboard or unblocking me. It's not fair to me that I am not allowed to respond to his charges there. If an adminstrator falls for his accusations by giving him the benefit of the doubt because he sees I'm on probation I will blocked for no reason. I'm writing because he's posted yet again to get me blocked because he doesn't like my edits. And, what's more, he has been stalking me. And, he admitted to it. I am unable to avoid him wherever I go on Misplaced Pages. He is clearly harrassing me. I can't complain about this harrassment and admitted stalking because you blocked me from making edits on the Noticeboard. Please reconsider. Thank you. RJII 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong admin. It was another admin that blocked me from posting to the Noticeboard. RJII 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM

Template:RFM-Filed

Alienus 02:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, and I've said so there William M. Connolley 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium block

Hi William. On the WP:AN/3RR board you said you had blocked User:Deuterium for 24 hours, but you actually only blocked him for 3 hours. Did you just get the wrong drop-down when blocking? Jayjg 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I've corrected it (I think he gained a few mins, but close enough) William M. Connolley 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayjg 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ENSO

Hello again William. The consensus on this page seems to be to move it to El Niño-Southern Oscillation. I was planning on doing this myself, but that page has more than one edit, so it requires an administrator to do it. Would you like to do it (as you are already familiar with the situation) or would you like me to list it on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves? Thanks again for your time. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll move it - just see my comment on the page; don't bother list it William M. Connolley 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

Thanks, William. I've unprotected. SlimVirgin 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just found Misplaced Pages:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks#List_of_admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks via your talk page... good idea William M. Connolley 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to add your name, or not as you see fit. The anon who was reverting, 64.230.120.237 (talk · contribs), doesn't seem to be blocked, by the way, because he's just posted to my talk page. :-) SlimVirgin 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange block. I just noticed I was blocked from IRmep. Did you notice that Moshe actually reverted three times prior to my just editing of the lead (which SlimVirgin described as a revert, but it wasn't.) Check out these three edits: , , and. I have to note that SlimVirgin is of the same ideological bent at Moshe -- I feel as if I have been targeted unfairly. I am also trying hard to push the dispute to an RfC but it is being ignored while Moshe reverts the article. I strongly feel as if I am being bullied and the article is being biased unfairly towards the ideological bent of Moshe and SlimVirgin. Anyways, it does seem unfair and I do not think I have a recourse. I feel I made a lot of decent comments on the talk page of IRmep -- I am not a vandal. --64.230.120.237 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies - I've blocked you properly now. Sorry William M. Connolley 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Climate

The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has identified this article as a core topic in need of attention, as it needs a lot of editing to bring up to FA standards. Since this is your area of expertise, would you be willing to improve this article? Tito xd 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will take a look William M. Connolley 11:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Scheuer page

Please take a look at recent edits. One editor does not want certain Scheuer quotes to be included in the article because it goes against his ideological POV. Perhaps my introduction to these comments should be changed, but instead of helping to make the article better - he just deletes the quotes, an act of pure censorship. Misplaced Pages readers deserve to know why Scheuer is such a controversial figure. What can I do to stop the censorship? RonCram 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what this is to do with me, but I'll have a look William M. Connolley 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It *is* nothing to do with me. This is a content dispute about which I know nothing, sorry. WP:DR is my only suggestion William M. Connolley 14:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

CounterCulture Wikia

William, this is a courtesy call. I'm the admin of a new wikia, CounterCulture and today have used one of your pictures on the main page. My wiki skills are rudimentary and I might have erred. If I have not done the right thing, please feel free to tell me and of course I apologise. Alpheus 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine, best wishes. Any of my pics for wiki can be used under the same license, ie GFDL William M. Connolley 14:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, William. Much appreciated. Best wishes to you, too. Alpheus 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a reversion emergency

Hi William. Would you mind taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Northmeister? Northmeister has taken control of the page, and is continuously reverting while asking for page protection. Apparently he's willing to revert any number of times, so long as he gets the page protected on his version. Thanks. Jayjg 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed your unprotection of the page. Please keep in mind that Northmeister's block will expire in under 2 hours. Jayjg 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, yes, but have you noticed I reblocked NM to 24h? Thats what he got for 3RR; I'm going to tell CM that I've undermined his block... William M. Connolley 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Proto blocked him for 24 hours initially, so it seems fair. Jayjg 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

William, would you consider restoring Slrubenstein's protection? The NOR page is under attack from more than just Northmeister. There are a number of new or newish editors trying to force the page to their version to make it easier for them to add their OR to articles. If the page is protected for a few days, things might calm down. Cheers, SlimVirgin 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These include LaRouche supporters or activists, by the way i.e. Northmeister and Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, did I get the wrong end of the stick? I thought it was only/mostly NM. Please - don't hesitate to re-protect it if you consider that to be appropriate. My own judgement would be to give it a chance to be unprotected for a bit and see if it survives, but I don't mind being overridden. Plus, I'm off down the pub in an hour :-) William M. Connolley 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the original blocking admin would like it re-blocked as well. He's hesitant to do so because he doesn't want to wheel war with you. Jayjg 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I've left a note on SR's talk William M. Connolley 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for re-protecting. Steve thought he was reprotecting, but he'd only re-added the tag and then forgot to do the protection bit. SlimVirgin 19:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

Hey - I was waiting for your explanation on the talk page. I appreciate your note on my talk page. I do think it is still a good idea to protect the policy page for a couple of days because (1) others were involved in reverts and (2) it is even-handed. Blocking a user for 24 hours is a sort of discipline against one user, protecting the page is a way to get many participants in a dispute to cool down. So I am going to re-protect. I'd like to give it a couple of days, but if you feel that is excessive you can unprotect it tomorrow, how is that?

Thats OK... lets move the talk to the article talk to avoid more fragmenting! William M. Connolley 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Issued block

Dear Mr. Connolley, I appreciate you taking the initiative to ease the tensions in the wiki pages that I participate in. The last action you took by blocking only me for reverting legitimate content (backed by sources always) I don't consider a fair one. That I have violated 3RR is true, and I deserved a warning for that, even though my reverts have been based on facts that I provided through sources. But if you had to issue a block, you should have also issued one to the other party (who is very suspicious, new user, a potential sockpuppet of some other users in other talk pages). See Special:Contributions/NikX and later approved changes by the one who I suspect as being the real user of that username User:asterion. The last user is known for harrassing whoever does not agree with him. His "you are a sockpuppet of this" pointing is very frequent! Hopefully in the future you do not take sides when trying to ease tensions. Taking sides is not what adminship is about. Instead a better evaluation before block is issued should take place, like checking what other side in the dispute is doing, and issue blocks to both. Regards,Ilir pz 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR is about reverts, not content. I say this time and again, and so do others, and its clear enough, but still people fail to realise... hey ho, in the end a block makes things clear. Please consider WP:1RR as a general policy and your pain will be eased William M. Connolley 07:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK then, please, without checking the content and being mislead by the little "m"(minor edit sign) check the reverts made by user:NikX on the same day:

rev 1: rev 2: rev 3: rev 4: rev 5: rev 6: rev 7:

As I said, he misleads with the little "m" sign, and the message he leaves behind, as if he is changing a little. In fact he is reverting to his version, and in talk pages says that "only until that version" is accepted then he will not revert. I expect that you act accordingly. ThanksIlir pz 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about NikX, then the proper place is 3RR. As to your diffs: the first 2 are successive edits, so only count for 1 (ditto the 5th & 6th?). The third is to a different article. William M. Connolley 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the 3rd, mistake. I guess edits are counted within a 24hr period, and successive or not it does not matter. Correct me if I am wrong. I filed a complaint there at proper place, but thought since you took that initiative for me, you would finish the started adminship initiative. Thanks, Ilir pz 10:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Successive edits count as one, since they *could* have been made as one. I've now clarified this on the WP:3RR page, as it reflects how policy is actually applied. William M. Connolley 10:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule

Excellent idea to make this addition. I've often thought it should be made more obvious. AnnH ♫ 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... its gone again now, Trey Harris removed it :-( You may want to see the 3RR talk page... William M. Connolley 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ksenon

Im afraid your block of me is ill-founded. Please see the page history and notice that 24 hours passed between these edits, with 3 subsequent reverts, not 4. Please take action accordingly. Ksenon

I'll take this to your talk page, where you can talk without being naughty like you are here. But you're wrong. William M. Connolley 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3rr on House of Yahweh

William M. Connolley wrote:

You get a stern warning re WP:3RR on House of Yahweh. I'm pretty sure you were acting for the best, but the only exceptions to 3RR are for blatant vandalism, so please be more careful William M. Connolley 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Er, sorry about that. I did eventually think, "wait a sec, I've reverted too many times, I'd better stop", so I did. Unfortunately by then I'd already reverted the page into next week. I will indeed be more careful in the future – Gurch 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me William M. Connolley 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Anthropology

12 minutes. That's how long it took him to revert the page again... Guettarda 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed! Thats fast work. But this is a mystery... does he have a bot, mailing him? Does he have a "real" account to watch it from? I'm baffled! It will probably need reprotecting, sigh William M. Connolley

Persian Gulf

This page was unprotected in the middle of discussions and there's already a revert war. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Aucaman 05:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

RealClimate funding source

Hi-I didn't want to post this on the RealClimate talk page, I'm a fan of RealClimate, but a number of climate skeptic "friends" have pointed out that the realclimate.org domain name is registered to "Environmental Media Services", which according to http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/adler_morriss200405260828.asp operates "with support from MoveOn.org" (or something like that). Can you verify what political action groups are associated with realclimate, if any, and why EMS is listed in your whois domain record? Needless to say this has caused a credibility gap, I can't reference your site as a neutral source of information to these skeptics anymore, so I was hoping to get some clarity. -- Stbalbach 03:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/. Dragons flight 04:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! William M. Connolley 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Just stopping by to say hello, have a nice day. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) talk

69.231.194.119

I noticed that you have blocked this user in the past, however he/she is up to old tricks again. Much obliged if you could block again. Sfacets 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi

Thanks for semi protecting the Serbia and Montenegro article. I would appreciate any suggestions from you as an admin on what is the best action to take against User:Hipi Zhdripi. I know he is behind the IP addresses involved in the last actions for which I requested the Semi-protection. I have marked these IPs as suspected sockpuppets. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi himself in a few of the edit summaries and previously here. This certainly make him go over the 3RR limit repeatedly. The fact that he got blocked for this before seems to clarify that he is fully aware of the rule. Shall I list him in the 3RR noticeboard as User:Hipi Zhdripi or ask for a CheckUser? --Asterion 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

An anon admitting to be HZ isn't direct evidence -could be malice by an opponent, of course. Also blocking 172.some anons is problematic due to their being AOL proxies. Probably worth listing for checkuser, since its led to a page sprotect. Otherwise, make up a sub-page in your space (say) (or in HZ's?) listing anon's you think are him, and why; so you can refer to it in future and not lose track William M. Connolley 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this tomorrow. Cheers, --Asterion 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill

Yes, your right, I went overboard. Haven't been about for awhile, guess I have to stay away for a bit longer. After almost a year of fighting with James I'm no longer rational in my dealings with him. Thanks for warring me. --DV8 2XL 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just do something else for a bit... William M. Connolley 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd Email

Just letting you know I sent you a second email. It's not urgent, but I'd appreciate your reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered. Hope thats OK William M. Connolley 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi William, I noticed you went through the reports at WP:AN/3RR, but you seemed to miss mine, that of User:Constantzeanu. Just wanted to inform you. —Khoikhoi 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

N has done this William M. Connolley 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Skinmeister

Thanks. Yeah I unblocked it because I didn't think it was enough to warrant a block. I didn't even see the 3RR vio. Good call. --Woohookitty 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clear cut. 5 reverts in about 12 hours. --Woohookitty 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But on the other side CD has 4 reverts too, so I've split 24h between them as a compromise William M. Connolley 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I know I deserved it, so thanks for treating me fairly with that ban. Skinmeister 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr of those IP's

Thanks for addressing that so quickly. Could you revert their most recent revert (it's not verified). I don't want them to think I'm the only one who will revert their unsourced additions.--Urthogie 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't. Its not one of my interests; I have no idea who is right! William M. Connolley 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to tell you there was no need anymore. What I did is I edited the page with comments so even a blind man could understand how to source the statements. It's all good, thanks for helping make the project better by watching 3RR. Peace, --Urthogie 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Block for violation of 3RR on List of shock sites

Sir, I was only reverting Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s repetative removal of the advert tag from the page. That user has a habit of reverting changes and labeling them as vandalism without discussion simply because he disagrees with them. Currently, whether or not that article conforms to Misplaced Pages's policy of no advertisement/promotion is currently disputed, and the tag should remain for the time being. As he was repetatively removing it even after being warned not to, I felt that I was simply reverting vandalism, and did not think that I was violating the three-revert rule, as it does not apply to the reversion of edits that are clearly inappropriate, correct? I apologise if I have violated the rule. - Conrad Devonshire 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, if "I warned him, so I haven't broken 3RR" was right, no-one would break it... ditto "I felt I was reverting vandalism". Sorry, but stick to 3 reverts in future William M. Connolley 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

monobook

You seem to use the article name for 3RR blocks rather than the history page (which also gives the name). I suppose that is a bit cleaner, should change the tab script then to reflect that? I can also have a history page link generated based on the name (so it can have a link to that too).Voice-of-All 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the history-page thing links with "these are the reverts in question" which I feel is confusing... "This is the page history" would be better. But putting the page title into the header is good, I think. Also I often remove the leading ":". William M. Connolley 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the title a bit. The ":" is assuming that you warned them, and it goes under the same section. The warning now lets you assume that you din'nt warn him for that instance (like for a repeat offender), so it uses the title. Is there anything else I can clean up?Voice-of-All 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I was looking forward to trying this out, but... I've lost all my buttons. Has something gone wrong? William M. Connolley 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...refresh your browser chache...should be working now.Voice-of-All 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, works now. Couple of comments: rather than the semi-cryptic "was the user warned?" just "would you like it indented" would be better. Um... did it just change somewhat? William M. Connolley 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the prompt box this week. Any other request?Voice-of-All 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment... seems to work well. Thanks William M. Connolley 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

three-revert watch

Would you be so kind as to visit the history of the Billy Graham page to check the propriety of recent actions taken by an editor named Rogerman(talk)? I have noticed that you have been conscientious about blocking three-revert offenders in the past, and I am not familliar enough with the process or criteria to pursue this editor, although I strongly suspect that there is a problem. Even in the event that his actions were not to violate the rule, his thinly veiled POV activity in this case should at least constitute vandalism. Thanks. Projection70 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I see no 3RR there (only 3 edits). As for the rest... talk to him; its too early fo admin intervention William M. Connolley 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I don't know what the technical distinction is between an edit and rv when the text to which an edit is returned is identical to the earlier edit. The user in question calls them rv in his summaries, and I would agree with him that they are, but it isn't clear. Could you advise as to the difference? Also, please note that the user has made the same rv (edit?) again since you last checked his activity. Beyond what point will admin intervention become appropriate? Projection70 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Projection70, going around talking behind my back is not cool. If you have a problem with my edits, why didn't you come to me directly? That would have been the appropriate step if you indeed wanted to resolve an issue rather than causing trouble. That said, I am always willing to work with anyone, no matter how many conflicts I may of had with them in the past. Please contact me if you would like to make amends and work together for a better Misplaced Pages. -Rog Rogerman 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

I raised my concerns about your behavior in the appropriate place, on the discussion page of the article. Indeed this was the appripriate step. When you then continued your activity instead of checking or engaging the discussion page, I checked your user talk page and realized that you have been notified of the same infractions before, as you hop from page to page to interject your POV (in the name of NPOV) regarding public figures whom you dislike. This is when I took the next appropriate step, as it became clear that your pattern needed admin attention. I was aware that you could read the user pages on which I asked for admin attention, so it was not, per se, behind your back. Projection70 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's leave Dr. Connolley alone and stay off his board. That said, let's stop arguing and work to build concensus instead. Rogerman 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

3RR Report

Greetings William M. Connolley, I appreciated your fair response to User:Anonymous editor's previous post about my supposed 3RR violation on Muhammad that I thought you should take a look at this report. I've reported myself as well so you may need to block me too but once you read the report then I suppose it'll be your call. Take it easy. Netscott 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Both editors were reverting on the articles and so both should be blocked for the same times. Both users violated the 3rr. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both editors were committing the same offence. I don't agree that gives the same block length. I applied the std rules: first offence gets you 3-12h depending on severity; multiple offences pushes you over 24h eventually. This is somewhat Hard Cheese for IPT, I agree. Just to make it worse, I've unblocked N cos he plausibly promised to be good. But I'd do the same for IPT. William M. Connolley 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should reduce the 3rr for IPT too. Like IPT, NS was warned for this before recently and unblocked after he agreed that the reverting stop. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just checked, you're right, this was not N's first offence (I thought it was but must have stuffed up the log check). OK, so N should have had 24h. I'll go and talk to IPT. If you wish to change IPT's block, please feel free to, I don't object William M. Connolley 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR Report

Is 3RR blocks made selectively? --Andrei George 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly are. Admins are expected to use their judgement when blocking. One factor was you: you are a "red user" yet you're clearly not new. That makes you someone trying to hide your past, which is obviously dodgy. The other factor was that I decided to protect the page, which made a block pointless (read WP:3RR) William M. Connolley 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another potential Lightbringer Puppet on Freemasonry

Hi William, I think we may have yet another Puppet on the Freemasonry pages. He seems fixated on proving that Freemasons supported Hitler or something like that. In any case, it forms part of his pattern to attack this section and try add a particular citation ... these edits may help you see what I mean: this edit by User:Anderson12 was made way back when - Anderson12 was subsequently banned for being a Lightbringer Sock.

Then there is this edit by User:Keystrokes - also shown to be a Lighbringer sock.

Now User:VQHernandez wants to make suspiciously similar edits: here, here, and here.

If this is not enough for a block, I will run a sock check on his IP to see if he uses something in the 21.68.240.98 range (used by other Lightbringer Socks). Thanks Blueboar 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I did nothing and you didn't scream and it doesn't look too bad now... William M. Connolley 19:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR and Community Portal

Just dropping you a note to say I think you acted unwisely with regard to User:HereToHelp and the Comunity Portal. The Portal is a hot bed of recuring edit wars over format and content, and it does need someone prepaired to step in and break 3rr and protect if it's needed to maintain stablity on the page. I think HereToHelp acted correctly in this case. --Barberio 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, Zzzzz is now reporting your action in this as admin support for his activities. I hope you will clarify to him that it was not. --Barberio 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on your page. I don't understand Zzzzz's comment. I don't accept your view of HtH - there was nothing urgent enough to justify breaking 3RR. William M. Connolley 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the Comunity Portal is a one of the four main navigation pages on Misplaced Pages, ensuring stability is always urgent. --Barberio 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But the reverts in question did not threaten the functioning of the page one way or the other. Face it: *lots* of people watch that page. There is no need for anyone to 4R over it William M. Connolley 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with WMC. Nandesuka 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, thats definitely worth something to me! William M. Connolley 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! LOL! __earth 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So it is. We don't seem to do it over here... I had a Water Day William M. Connolley 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange...I had an Air Day. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

don't tell me there's a fire day too. __earth 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Heart! With our powers combined... E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi, just to make sure; if I am given a picture free-of-charge, to be used in one, or two Misplaced Pages articles, only, and the original author has the copyright, yet, gives non-exclusive rights to, I--is this the correct tag for it?; PermissionAndFairUse. Thank youZmmz 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know, sorry - a message on a copyright page might be best. I'm not sure you can restrict use just to certain pages William M. Connolley 09:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this picture is unusable for Misplaced Pages, because it does not have a free-enough license (unless, of course, fair use applies).--Stephan Schulz 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if the owner of the pic has given permission for it to be used in Wiki, which tag should be used then?Zmmz 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to find the appropriate copyright-type page and ask there William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help this user out. I manage copyrights at work. The short answer is: he must have the permission of the image's creator. The only thing that changes this is if the creator attached a "free for non-comercial use" or some other such license to the image or to the page that serves the image. --CTSWyneken 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. We're not allowed to use images with permission if it places restrictions on commercial use. Zmmz, you're better off asking on one of the licence discussion pages. SlimVirgin 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Over to you... William M. Connolley 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

Thank you for dropping by and helping Paul McCain. He is new and I'm glad you noticed that.

Would you do me a favor and review the talk page? Since I'm in direct conflict with SlimVirgin, I would appreciate an outsider's view of my arguments. I like a little objectivity to keep me honest and rational while I ponder my next posts. --CTSWyneken 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. I tend to find SV very sensible, though William M. Connolley 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked. So... clearly this is controversial for some people. It looks like there are some outliers on this (on both sides?). So I hope you and SV can continue to talk and not get distracted by the gunk. On a minor point, getting insulted by the use of "silly" is probably an over reaction... its about the mildest possible expression available. Caveat: I know no background to this. William M. Connolley 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Robsteadman

Can you please unprotect User_talk:Robsteadman. He is clearly (at least partially) active again and by protecting the page you're making it hard to contact him. Thanks. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had e-mails from Rob saying this isn't him - the account has edited the Robert Steadman article which Rob knows not to do. As his account was deleted I assume there was nothing to stop someone recreating it. What happens in situations like these?

There's a question for you... the account has a long contribution history, so isn't new. Unless new accounts pick up... lets try WP:AN/I William M. Connolley 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The account is the same one. All that got deleted was the user page. So I see no reason to think it isn't the same person William M. Connolley 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the account had been deleted and I wasn't sure if it would pick up the old edit history if recreated. If we're sure it's the same user then he has been editing his own article - what happens with that? Since Rob doesn't think it's him should the account be banned indef anyway?Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand. All Rob has to do is to login, and change the password if he wants to. If he can't change the password, then I'm pretty sure he can request a new one by email anyway. So yes, I or any admin can perma-block it, but why? William M. Connolley 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I did ask for my account to be permently deleted at the beginning of April and was told that it would be by user: Musical Linguist. It seems she didn't do this as was requested.

It seems that someone else has been editing using the account because the edits on April 20th and April 23rd are not by me...

Now, could someone now PLEASE permanently delete it. Totally. I don't want any record of my account

OK folks, I've trimmed the discussion. Now... Rob, I cannot delete the account but I can delete both the userpage and the talk page if thats what you want; or how about just protecting them as blank or with the leaving message? Deleting the account requires dev priv I think. If you really want the account completely deleted, reply so here and I'll tout the diff around AN/I or whereever to see where it might get actionned. Bear in mind that if the account gets deleted (which I'm not actually sure is possible), I'm not sure there is anything you can do to stop it being recreated by someone else. William M. Connolley 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't discuss this more here - please see the discussion on t:RS William M. Connolley 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Apologies if I'm annoying you by adding more about something you don't want to discuss. I won't get huffy if you delete my post! But I thought I should let you know that Rob has been blocked, and his talk page (which he had filled with posts similar to the ones you removed from here) has been protected. The discussion (if there is any) is continuing here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - yes I'd noticed, but I might not have. Note to everyone else: I'm out of this discussion now. No more! William M. Connolley 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism of Kellie Everts

The vandalism of Kellie Everts by anon 69.231.194.119 has been continuing. You placed a temporary ban about two weeks ago, but despite that, and repeated warnings from several users, the guy just insists on making the same changes over and over. It looks like we may require admin action once again. Thanks, fbb_fan 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fairly low-level, but vandalism. I've blocked for 24h mostly for the talk page comment. William M. Connolley 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing he'll be back, but I guess we'll worry about that later. fbb_fan 01:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary McCarthy

Hi -- I notice that you're an admin who has expressed concern about DaveThomas's editing of the Mary O. McCarthy article. Might I request your assistance at the Mary McCarthy article as well? Mary McCarthy is a novelist completly unrelated to current politics. DaveThomas has been repeatedly reverting the disambiguation line on this page to reflect personal bias regarding Mary O. McCarthy. I am concerned that an unrelated literature article is being dragged into a political debate that should be limited to the Mary O. McCarthy page. ~CS 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... looks fairly low level at the moment. No call for admin intervention William M. Connolley 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

About anon at IP 87.116.171.209

Hi -- I noticed that you blocked this anon editor for 8 hours. Would you consider reducing this block to half an hour or an hour? For reasons that I explain at WP:AN/I, I suspect that a ban of more than half an hour will be counterproductive: it won't stop this person, but will likely block good-faith editors in Belgrade, Serbia. Thanks, llywrch 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy to AN/I and reply there William M. Connolley 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Account deletion

Account deletions are not possible if a user has made an edit to a wikipedia article. From my knowledge of the GFDL licence conditions, *all* edits made by a contributor/author/creator have to be necessarily credited. Deletion of a username would violate this condition. Also, a contribution made under GFDL is irrevocable. To answer your next question, no, 'crats cannot delete an account. They can only rename. I hope this answers your question. For the rallying bit... Misplaced Pages talk:Changing username might be a good place to start with. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Thats what I wanted to know William M. Connolley 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

JedRothwell

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:JedRothwell_2, and if you wish, his talk page(he keeps deleting NPA warnings). I've reverted his unsourced additions once, so prefer not to be the blocking admin. In addition, as an "insufferable, outrageous, impolite and uninvited" editor, I would prefer a second Admin support and/or be the blocking admin on this user. KillerChihuahua 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks! I probably should have said in my request if you'd disagreed with my assessment that he should be blocked, I would of course have abided by that, but IMHO with 5 reverts and 20 or so personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring, he was a likely candidate for a brief block. KillerChihuahua 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Werner Herzog

There's a bit of a problem over at the Werner Herzog page concerning the ethnicity of his father. I see you've dealt with the problem before and I was hoping you could help out. Thanks.--Staple 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Will look, no promises William M. Connolley 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looked. Not 3RR yet, nothing I can do really William M. Connolley 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks anyway.--Staple 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

You gave Instantnood a warning about revert warring. and he was banned for 48 hours by another admin. Note upon his return the first thing he did was head to that article to perform the same reverts. . Can you page ban him from that article, per his arbcom sanction (which doesn't require 3RR, just being inappropriate or disruptive)? It's rather ridiculous that he's been attempting to make this claim about a capital city that doesn't exist for more than a year. SchmuckyTheCat 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly note that user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak are not reverting only what is disputed. They revert materials unrelated to the disagreement. The Hong Kong article is not the first article they're reverting in this manner, despite being reminded, respectively, at their user talk pages. Thanks. User:Alanmak is even refusing to talk, and user:SchmuckyTheCat has kept referring to evidence that is proven invalid and unrealiable. — Insta ntnood 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be more cautious. You are very close to getting blocked (by me) under your arbcomm sanction from editing that page. Stick to 1RR on it and related or you will be sad William M. Connolley 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly spend a few seconds or so and read what they're reverting. Please also note whether the most recent ArbCom case was properly and appropriately opened was not ensured. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No - I'm not going to second guess the arbcomm, thank you. Live within their judgements William M. Connolley 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not agree, but please respect different views. The validity of the judgements is questioned if justice of the mechanism and its process is not adequately ensured. — Insta ntnood 22:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR reminder

Thanks for the reminder. But could you please kindly tell which of my edits are constituting the three reverts within a 24-hour period? Thank you. — Insta ntnood 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Examine your own edits. If you are in doubt, err on the side of caution William M. Connolley 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat was referring to a February 2005 version (which I couldn't recall) and calling my first edit he disagrees a revert . I reverted him since he was ignoring my other edits unrelated to the disagreement (he disagrees only with City of Victoria), and that's vandalism . I don't actually care if he were reverting only what he disagrees (i.e. City of Victoria), for the matter was already being discussed at the talk page. — Insta ntnood 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat has kept reverting everything, instead of reverting only what he disagrees . As per user:Jiang , this kind of behaviour is " committing simple vandalism ". Please help remind him not to overdo. Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 13:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether its simple vandalism or not depends on circumstances. Don't use it as an excuse for breaking 3RR. If it really is SV, someone else will agree with you William M. Connolley 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. But since you've been handling the trouble you're in a good position to look into those edits and examine whether they are, and take neccessary action(s). — Insta ntnood 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the administrator who've had handled the matter, and that was the reason why I talk to you for user:SchmuckyTheCat's problematic edits. If you're not going to and/or not interested to further deal with this case, could you please kindly refer it to someone else appropriately? Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If its 3RR, take it to WP:3RR. If its an editing dispute, the WP:DR William M. Connolley 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a very long block

The User GODDESSY that you blocked today, shes been banned before and still made changes to her own bio with her sockpuppet.

Please read this page and then if you so feel (Please Please Please)

Just get rid of her permanently...

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

JuliannaRoseMauriello 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3R rule

I don't understand what a "revert" is for purposes of this rule. For example, supposing that an article states "The dog is blue around the ears." and I edit that to say, "The dog is blue under the ears" is that a revert?

If someone then changes that to "The dog is blue over his ears" and I then change that to "The dog is blue over and under the ears" is that a second revert? -- Drogo Underburrow 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the WP:3RR talk page William M. Connolley 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

are you not gonna check my report, Dr. Connolley?Ilir pz 10:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

global warming and ice

hey, I was browsing the wikipedia's sci ref desk and . To be exact, its about ice and latent heat. It reminds me of my physics. User:Peter Grey asks "once most of the Earth's ice has melted, we should expect the temperature to increase at a faster rate?". Given what for I know from my undergrad physics, I'd say at least the temperature of the water from the melted ice. But what about of global temperature? Should we expect temperature to increase at a faster rate too? __earth 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this. Will reply on your talk William M. Connolley 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock and delete page

I request that you unblock my "talk page" and immediately and permanently delete the contents of it. You are free to permanently block me from contributing to Misplaced Pages, as I have no intention of doing so in any case... --JedRothwell 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Killer seems to be on the case here, so I shall leave you alone for the moment William M. Connolley 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking for suggestion about what to do with an edit war

Hi there, I came here to ask you for advice about what to do with a page in the middle of a revert war, as I see you are experienced in dealing with violations of the Three Revert Rule. The page Latino has been the site of many edit conflicts in the past few months, mostly stemming from User:Henrymark from what I've observed. This user does not respond to notices on their talk page nor the talk page of Latino itself.

I attempted to report the user for a violation of the three revert rule in the past, though it was denied as the user appears to make slight changes each time to his/her edits, not making them a simply revert. Lately, another user has stepped into the conflict by the name of Burgas00. Other users have been reverting Henrymark's changes as well.

If you see the Latino history page, it's quite clear from the edit notes that there is a conflict going on. I was hoping you could tell me what should be done in this case. Thanks. Cowman109 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR to me, and blocked accordingly. Slight changes don't matter William M. Connolley 19:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry about that, I guess I got a bit carried away. But, as you say, I was attempting to establish some contact with user henrymark. Anyways I will try to stick to the 3RR, Im still relatively new to wikipedia. By the way, could you tell me how to redirect an article to another one, or change its name? Could you at least direct me to a site which explains all this? Thanks alot!!! --Burgas00 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect is done just by making the first text on a page #REDIRECT new name. Page moving... is too easy. I'll let you find that out yourself :-) William M. Connolley 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick help, William! Cowman109 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Henrymark is back again starting revert wars, this time clearly writing nonsense on the latino page... Im not going to revert his edits (some other wikipedians are already doing so), could you do something about this. Cheers!!!--Burgas00 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All his contributions to a variety of articles are (minor) vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Henrymark This guy should definetly be blocked.

And has been, while I was out... William M. Connolley

3RR by 69.119.83.198

The user 69.119.83.198 has reverted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he has been warned about Three-revert rule. Siddiqui 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm off now, best take this to WP:3RR William M. Connolley 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

content

Dear Dr Connolley,

I have been looking at your wikipedia stuff, and it seems that you are extremely experienced in your field. It also seems (particularly from this talk page) that your new administrator role now occupies a significant part of your time and effort here. Of course it is nice that you have had the recognition in being given the admin tools, but really such tedious tasks as policing 3RR could be done by people with considerably less expertise than yourself. I think it would be a shame if your doing so reduced the time you have for writing content for climatology related pages, because that would seem to be where you can make the best contribution.

Arbitrary username 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats very kind of you. Happily, the climate-type pages are quite quiet at the moment. We're all gearing ourselves up to putting in the AR4 text when its public, I think... William M. Connolley 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

William, I'm concerned about your response regarding Nygaard. He's trolling on the RS talk page, and is well known for doing this (lots of bizarre questions and objections on talk that people can't understand, much less answer, and very aggressive), and keeps deleting valid material from the guideline and has to be reverted. Now he won't allow the talk page to be archived because he wants to preserve his trolling posts, even those I think it's approaching 90 kb and no one's going to respond to him so the thread's aren't live. Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. There's no point in having the policy if it's not going to be enforced (and it should be enforced regardless of the content issue at stake). If you personally disagree with the policy, then perhaps you could decide to stay away from enforcement issues. I'm really mystified by this. SlimVirgin 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. I disagree with both halves of that. If both sides have broken 3RR clearly, then I'll block both, of course, and have. As to this case: FM has now blocked GN; I don't know if thats because you contacted him or because he read my post on AN3. The reason I posted there was partly to prompt someone else to do something, if they wanted to, because it seemed to have got forgotten. The reason I didn't block was... as I said. Bear in mind that "obvious trolling" to someone familiar with the case is not to someone who isn't William M. Connolley 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable blocking by Jonathunder

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. Is this now a dead or settled issue? William M. Connolley 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My block expired, but still the blocking is unreasonable. Ideally I'd like a few comments about the legality of the Jonathunder's activities. FunkyFly 16:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi William, could you please check this out? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Done by another, now William M. Connolley 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Megaman Zero

Hi there. I noticed your interaction with User:Megaman Zero about his 3RR violation. I also noticed that he made an edit while not logged in and then logged-in a minute later and re-signed it; I looked-up his IP (204.218.240.42) and checked its talk page and noticed him remonstrating the IP for an edit; there are many, many warnings on the talk page. Further, the IP belongs to the "DoD Dependents Schools-European Region" in Wiesbaden, Germany and I recall a statement on Zero's page that he went to such a school. I know that the IP might be shared, but also know that it is possible that this is an elaborate game he's playing. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know and give you the chance to look into it. --Moby 12:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - well, is this any problem? If he starts editing from that IP while blocked, thats another matter William M. Connolley 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A doubt

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Anonymous_editor

Hello, I feel nice talking to you. I have a doubt. Did you mean me or someone else while giving your comments on 3RR page? However, I would like to add that I readily agree with your comments. --Bhadani 13:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not you, but TU William M. Connolley 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hanuman Das

Please unblock him - I had blocked him for a week. I had requested on 3RR page. Thanks and also thanks for giving me a new wiki ID of "B". Regards. --Bhadani 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for unblocking me. —Hanuman Das 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

you blocked me for violating the 3RR rule

You mention that I should take the issue up in the discussions page which I did before being blocked by you so I dont understand why you blocked me? Please explain!

Sorry. Prev block didn't work (or you wouldn't be able to write that). I've done it properly now. Answered on your talk page William M. Connolley 18:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)